[MD] Ever redefining self

[Ham Priday]

Hi Peter --


> I think we agreed in an earlier post that 'I' is illusory.
> So I have nothing against your first few sentences.
> But from then you start to talk about that nothingness
> as if it can appropriate a body and have awareness.
> You give that nothingness a soul.  I suppose if I can
> let Dawkins get away with 'selfish gene' then, to a an
> extent, I must accept your phraseology too. So,
> although some of your peculiar terminology is slightly
> ominous, I can also agree with your following paragraph.
> I wanted to shout 'Oy, No!'; 'I' is merely a symbol for
> all the static patterning forming me as an individual and
> awareness consists wholly in that patterning also, but
> then you seem to assert the same in your last sentences:
>
> Ultimately, man gives up his being totally to Value.
> Then there is no more being-aware;
> there is only absolute value
> which is absolute sensibility
> which is Essence Itself.
>
> So Ham, I find myself in agreement with you here;
> which surprises me considering some of the
> earlier posts we exchanged months ago.

I checked my mailbox for past disagreements, but couldn't find any with you.
This "nothingness doing" concept has been problematic for everybody,
including myself.  I think I've remediated it somewhat in a new Values Page
essay on Value that's running this week at www.essentialism.net/balance.htm
.  You might want to check it out.  The gist of it is that the value of the
subjective self resides in the beingness of its objective other (a
dichotomy), and it is this value that we seek in the life-experience.  Now,
that's a lot of words, and I haven't gotten the epistemology down to an
axiom yet; but several points need to be made about value-sensibility
relative to Essence.

1.)  Neither relative value nor proprietary (self-) awareness is Essence.  I
say this because Essence is indivisible, while value and awareness are
conditional.
2.)  Value is the sense of desire or longing of the finite creature for the
absolute source (Essence).  It is how the individual realizes Essence in the
"being" of things experienced.
3.)  Beingness is how the intellect (brain function) interprets value.  But
being is not Essence.
4.)  Hypothetically, Value + Awareness = Essence; however, it would have to
be the totally integrated value experience of all cognizant creatures
throughout all of time.
5.)  The individual is a being-aware.  Awareness presupposes an object,
without which it is only the potential to be-aware.  In order to justify the
logic of this "pre-conscious" potential, I've posited Value as its "cause",
even though value is commonly regarded as a subjective judgment (i.e.,
relative).  In the timeless perspective of Essence, this wouldn't matter;
but it becomes an ontological problem in space/time existence where subject
and object are divided, that is, where the essence of the self is contained
in its otherness.  (I'm still trying to clear up this mess, and would
welcome the assistance of anyone interested.)

Okay, now tell me where we disagree.

Regards,
Ham